The Mass or the Lord’s Supper?

The next point was whether the institution of the Lord’s Supper had been changed, and lawfully so?

The disputant on the Papal side admitted that Christ had instituted all the Sacraments, and imparted to them their virtue and efficacy, which virtue and efficacy were the justifying grace, of man.[1] The essentials of the Sacrament came from Christ, but there were accessories of words and gestures and ceremonies necessary to excite due reverence for the Sacrament, both on the part of him who dispenses and of him who receives it. These, Doctor Gallus affirmed, had their source either from the apostles or from the primitive Church, and were to be observed by all Christians. Thus the mass remains as instituted by the Church, with significant rites and decent dresses.

“The Word of God,” replied Olaf, “endures for ever; but,” he added, “we are forbidden either to add to it or take away from it. Hence it follows that the Lord’s Supper having been, as Doctor Gallus has admitted, instituted by Christ, is to be observed not otherwise than as He has appointed. The whole Sacrament — as well its mode of celebration as its essentials — is of Christ, and not to be changed” He quoted the words of institution, “This is my body” — “take eat;” “this cup is the New Testament in my blood” — “drink ye all of it,” &c. “ Seeing,” said he, “Doctor Gallus concedes that the essentials of a Sacrament are not to be changed, and seeing in these words we have the essentials of the Lord’s Supper, why has the Pope changed them? Who gave him power to separate the cup from the bread? If he should say the blood is in the body, I reply, this violates the institution of Christ, Who is wiser than all Popes and bishops.

Did Christ command the Lord’s Supper to be dispensed differently to the clergy and to the laity? Besides, by what authority has the Pope changed the Sacrament into a sacrifice! Christ does not say, ‘Take and sacrifice’ but, ‘Take and eat.’ The offering of Christ’s sacrifice once for all made a full propitiation. The Papal priestling,[2] when he professes to offer the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, pours contempt upon the sacrifice of Christ, offered upon the altar of the cross. He crucifies Christ afresh. He commits the impiety denounced in the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He not only changes the essentials of the Lord’s Supper, but he does so for the basest end, even that of raking together[3] wealth and filling his coffers, for this is the only use of his tribe of priestling, and his everlasting masses.”

[1]“Dat (Christus) solus virtutem et efficacem Sacramentis, hsec est gratia justificans hominem.” (Acta Col loquii Upsaliensis—ex Baazio.)

[2]“SacrificulusPapisticus.” (Acta Colio quiiUpsaliensis.)

[3]“Corradit opes”, Ivid.)

Zwingli’s Discussion on Images and the Mass

Christ’s Death — Zwingli’ s Fundamental Position — Iconoclasts — Hottinger — Zwingli on Image-worship — Conference of all Switzerland summoned — 900 Members Assemble — Preliminary Question — The Church — Discussion on Images — Books that Teach Nothing — The Mass Discussed — It is Overthrown — Joy of Zwingli — Relics Interred.

The images were still retained in the churches, and mass still formed part of the public worship. Zwingli now began to prepare the public mind for a reform in both particulars — to lead men from the idol to the one true God; from the mass which the Church had invented to the Supper which Christ had instituted. The Reformer began by laying down this doctrine in his teaching, and afterwards more formally in eighteen propositions or conclusions which he published — “that Christ, Who offered Himself once for all upon the cross, is a sufficient and everlasting Sacrifice for the sins of all who believe upon Him: and that, therefore, the mass is not a sacrifice, but the memorial of Christ’s once offering upon the cross, and the visible seal of our redemption through Him.”[1] This great truth received in the public mind, he knew that the mass must fall.

“If there be a hell,” said Luther, “Rome is built over it.”

Instead of a city of prayers and alms, of contrite hearts and holy lives, Rome was full of mocking hypocrisy, defiant skepticism, jeering impiety, and shameless revelry. Borgia had lately closed his infamous Pontificate, and the warlike Julius II was now reigning. A powerful police patrolled the city every night. They were empowered to deal summary justice on offenders, and those whom they caught were hanged at the next post or thrown into the Tiber. But all the vigilance of the patrol could not secure the peace and safety of the streets. Robberies and murders were of nightly occurrence. “If there be a hell,” said Luther, “Rome is built over it.”

Christ? Yes; Mass? No – Resurrection? Yes; Rapture? No

Part Five – In Defense of the Historical Method of Interpretation

Lecture Five – Amillennial First Resurrection Past

I did want to finish up discussing a little bit more on the official Reformed Church position of Amillennialism and I know there are some Amillennial subscribers out there, they have been keeping an eye on what I’m saying over here and seem to be very civil people. The ones that are not civil are the dispensationalists, yeah I’ve been called dishonest and worse, which means the man is judging my heart and he believes that he knows what only God can know, the motivation of my heart. Because he says I’m being dishonest, well then he’s saying that I’m intentionally trying to deceive people! So I think he has a much bigger problem than just having wrong eschatology.